I'm in NC. THANK GOD. This has been such an embarrassment for my state. I feel bad for some of the students, but honestly they've been dicking people around for years so I don't know what you would expect.

hipcatdaddio wrote:I'm also in NC. The state was full with 5 law schools, 7 was absurd. We'll see how it operates with 6.

Close them all except Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest.

As a graduate of one of the schools mentioned above, I tend to agree. However, I can see how the argument can be made for NC Central, as it serves an underrepresented population and has a history of doing so at an relatively affordable price.

hipcatdaddio wrote:I'm also in NC. The state was full with 5 law schools, 7 was absurd. We'll see how it operates with 6.

Close them all except Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest.

As a graduate of one of the schools mentioned above, I tend to agree. However, I can see how the argument can be made for NC Central, as it serves an underrepresented population and has a history of doing so at an relatively affordable price.

There is absolutely an argument for NC Central. It's tuition is relatively cheap and you can get an education there without going too far into debt. It's a solid PI school.

Also, Wake should just relocate their law school to Charlotte. They already have a business program there. Employment outcomes are a lot better in CLT than Winston-Salem and they'd have the market cornered as a respectable law school in the market.

Last edited by NCGuy on Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

ABA finally doing something because of bad press. Don't see what the big deal is, there are for-profit schools everywhere. Digipen is a for-profit, it costs a fortune, they have low admission standards, it isn't as good as University of Washington, and people on computer science forums aren't lining up to shut it down. AboveTheComputerScience and Top-Computer-Science-Schools.com isn't writing articles about it's failure rate and cost of attendance.

Hundreds of students every year want to drop $44,284 a year for tuition? That's their business, let the market decide Charlotte's fate. Lawyers are so whiny, business is business. They're like the lady at the country club I hangout at that won't STFU about what car everyone's driving, always in every person's business because she's insecure about her own financial situation and doesn't want anyone to know the shit she's probably living in.

Subban_Fan wrote:ABA finally doing something because of bad press. Don't see what the big deal is, there are for-profit schools everywhere. Digipen is a for-profit, it costs a fortune, they have low admission standards, it isn't as good as University of Washington, and people on computer science forums aren't lining up to shut it down. AboveTheComputerScience and Top-Computer-Science-Schools.com isn't writing articles about it's failure rate and cost of attendance.

Hundreds of students every year want to drop $44,284 a year for tuition? That's their business, let the market decide Charlotte's fate. Lawyers are so whiny. They're like the lady at the country club I hangout at that won't STFU about what car everyone's driving because she's insecure about her own financial situation.

There's no excuse for someone not doing extensive research on third party sites in to an investment of $250,000+ (incl. interest on loans), considering how much research people do on a $30,000 car. But the school actively misleading people in to thinking their doctorate degree will land them a comfortably high paying job "if they just work hard", just so the school can make enough money to stay solvent and trick future classes of students, is a pretty shitty and unethical thing to do as well.

TLSDookie wrote:There's no excuse for someone not doing extensive research on third party sites in to an investment of $250,000+ (incl. interest on loans), considering how much research people do on a $30,000 car. But the school actively misleading people in to thinking their doctorate degree will land them a comfortably high paying job "if they just work hard", just so the school can make enough money to stay solvent and trick future classes of students, is a pretty shitty and unethical thing to do as well.

They're not doing anything different than thousands of other universities and colleges in the US. Plenty of expensive private universities tout the usefulness of their $250,000 undergraduate degree in liberal arts. Or throw out examples of how a couple of their alumnis are successful. You think the Rando Christian Pacific University or Jesuit ClaireMcKenna that charges $60,000/year isn't exagerrating on the usefulness of their Gender Politics degrees? You think MBA programs aren't telling people that if "they work hard" they'll land a comfortable high paying job? Please.

Post-secondary is big business in the US and the American market has no problem paying out huge tuition. The last thing Americans want is a China situation where university is so hard to get into a large % of people have to go to school abroad. Making a fuss over Charlotte because of some angry blog posts and internet commenters seems like a giant waste of time.

TLSDookie wrote:There's no excuse for someone not doing extensive research on third party sites in to an investment of $250,000+ (incl. interest on loans), considering how much research people do on a $30,000 car. But the school actively misleading people in to thinking their doctorate degree will land them a comfortably high paying job "if they just work hard", just so the school can make enough money to stay solvent and trick future classes of students, is a pretty shitty and unethical thing to do as well.

They're not doing anything different than thousands of other universities and colleges in the US. Plenty of expensive private universities tout the usefulness of their $250,000 undergraduate degree in liberal arts. Or throw out examples of how a couple of their alumnis are successful. You think the Rando Christian Pacific University or Jesuit ClaireMcKenna that charges $60,000/year isn't exagerrating on the usefulness of their Gender Politics degrees? You think MBA programs aren't telling people that if "they work hard" they'll land a comfortable high paying job? Please.

Post-secondary is big business in the US and the American market has no problem paying out huge tuition. The last thing Americans want is a China situation where university is so hard to get into a large % of people have to go to school abroad. Making a fuss over Charlotte because of some angry blog posts and internet commenters seems like a giant waste of time.

JD is a professional degree. Expensive liberal arts schools have the out that they aren't preparing people for one very specific kind of job. Nobody who goes to Charlotte Law (or any other scammy law school) wants to do anything with their degree other than become a lawyer. If a law school tricks people into thinking they can become lawyers when statistically 2/3rds of them won't (and that's probably generous), that's obviously more sinister.

Subban_Fan wrote:ABA finally doing something because of bad press. Don't see what the big deal is, there are for-profit schools everywhere. Digipen is a for-profit, it costs a fortune, they have low admission standards, it isn't as good as University of Washington, and people on computer science forums aren't lining up to shut it down. AboveTheComputerScience and Top-Computer-Science-Schools.com isn't writing articles about it's failure rate and cost of attendance.

Hundreds of students every year want to drop $44,284 a year for tuition? That's their business, let the market decide Charlotte's fate. Lawyers are so whiny, business is business. They're like the lady at the country club I hangout at that won't STFU about what car everyone's driving, always in every person's business because she's insecure about her own financial situation and doesn't want anyone to know the shit she's probably living in.

To be honest, the market was already taking care of Charlotte. They weren't making any money because their grads couldn't do shit. But that being said, the ABA (and the AG) have a duty to stop fraudulent actions of schools. I'm surprised your being such a dick about it.

hipcatdaddio wrote:I'm also in NC. The state was full with 5 law schools, 7 was absurd. We'll see how it operates with 6.

Close them all except Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest.

As a graduate of one of the schools mentioned above, I tend to agree. However, I can see how the argument can be made for NC Central, as it serves an underrepresented population and has a history of doing so at an relatively affordable price.

There is absolutely an argument for NC Central. It's tuition is relatively cheap and you can get an education there without going too far into debt. It's a solid PI school.

Also, Wake should just relocate their law school to Charlotte. They already have a business program there. Employment outcomes are a lot better in CLT than Winston-Salem and they'd have the market cornered as a respectable law school in the market.

As a Wake alum, that's never going to happen. That would be an insanely expensive move for the school who has a strong hold in Winston and has pretty solid placement throughout Charlotte and the triangle.

hipcatdaddio wrote:I'm also in NC. The state was full with 5 law schools, 7 was absurd. We'll see how it operates with 6.

Close them all except Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest.

As a graduate of one of the schools mentioned above, I tend to agree. However, I can see how the argument can be made for NC Central, as it serves an underrepresented population and has a history of doing so at an relatively affordable price.

There is absolutely an argument for NC Central. It's tuition is relatively cheap and you can get an education there without going too far into debt. It's a solid PI school.

Also, Wake should just relocate their law school to Charlotte. They already have a business program there. Employment outcomes are a lot better in CLT than Winston-Salem and they'd have the market cornered as a respectable law school in the market.

As a Wake alum, that's never going to happen. That would be an insanely expensive move for the school who has a strong hold in Winston and has pretty solid placement throughout Charlotte and the triangle.

I'm not a fan of satellite campuses generally but it's not a terrible idea. The University of Maryland has their law school in Baltimore rather than College Park. There are a lot more legal jobs and internships in Charlotte and it will likely be that way forever. Being in Charlotte wouldn't impact Wake's foothold in Winston since the main campus is there. Plus, Charlotte is probably an easier sell for most applicants (I personally prefer Winston to Charlotte).

What an idiotic policy. I don't think anyone could actually explain the logic behind it. If you're going to erase debt, you need to erase all of it. This should be an all or nothing proposition (of course, that would be worse for the students because idiots like DeVos would just choose nothing lol).

What an idiotic policy. I don't think anyone could actually explain the logic behind it. If you're going to erase debt, you need to erase all of it. This should be an all or nothing proposition (of course, that would be worse for the students because idiots like DeVos would just choose nothing lol).

Eh. I think canceling 75% of the debt, leaving students on the hook for no more than 25%, is sound policy. Think of it as a penalty for being a sucker. Students post-2010 or 2011 have to shoulder some of this blame, at least in the legal field. There was data out there.

I just don't think they should shoulder more than like 25% or so because fuck these law schools (the predatory nature of the schools caused most of this) + the students probably would never be able to pay the rest back anyway

Last edited by runinthefront on Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What an idiotic policy. I don't think anyone could actually explain the logic behind it. If you're going to erase debt, you need to erase all of it. This should be an all or nothing proposition (of course, that would be worse for the students because idiots like DeVos would just choose nothing lol).

Eh. I think canceling 75% of the debt, leaving students on the hook for no more than 25%, is sound policy. Think of it as a penalty for being a sucker. Students post-2010 or 2011 have to shoulder some of this blame, at least in the legal field. There was data out there.

I just don't think they should shoulder more than like 25% or so because fuck these law schools + they probably would never be able to pay the rest back anyway

You're basically admitting that they got duped and got a worthless degree. It makes no sense to stick them with any portion of the bill. If your contention is that they should have known better, then don't erase any of the debt imo.

Let me put it this way, even if you think the students bear some responsibility, I still think the federal government is better-situated to eat the money here than these students. It's better policy for the government to eat it than these kids to be stuck with even 25% of this debt if you're admitting these schools engaged in predatory behavior and the degree is pretty much worthless.

What an idiotic policy. I don't think anyone could actually explain the logic behind it. If you're going to erase debt, you need to erase all of it. This should be an all or nothing proposition (of course, that would be worse for the students because idiots like DeVos would just choose nothing lol).

Eh. I think canceling 75% of the debt, leaving students on the hook for no more than 25%, is sound policy. Think of it as a penalty for being a sucker. Students post-2010 or 2011 have to shoulder some of this blame, at least in the legal field. There was data out there.

I just don't think they should shoulder more than like 25% or so because fuck these law schools + they probably would never be able to pay the rest back anyway

You're basically admitting that they got duped and got a worthless degree. It makes no sense to stick them with any portion of the bill. If your contention is that they should have known better, then don't erase any of the debt imo.

Let me put it this way, even if you think the students bear some responsibility, I still think the federal government is better-situated to eat the money here than these students. It's better policy for the government to eat it than these kids to be stuck with even 25% of this debt if you're admitting these schools engaged in predatory behavior and the degree is pretty much worthless.

Doesn't this forgive stupid decision making in the future? Like, hey kids, if your decision to attend a school is so poorly thought out that the school closes, we'll get the bill. Never mind the bottom of the class student who made a similarly stupid, but just slightly not as bad, decision to go pay sticker at a less bad school that isn't going to close and where they still won't be able to afford the debt

Do we know the link even applies to Charlotte Law School? isn't this actually connected to lawsuits involving for-profit undergrads? Just because Charlotte closed, I don't think it officially was held to "defraud" anyone, right?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Do we know the link even applies to Charlotte Law School? isn't this actually connected to lawsuits involving for-profit undergrads? Just because Charlotte closed, I don't think it officially was held to "defraud" anyone, right?

I have not heard of Charlotte Law School being discussed nearly as frequently as some of the big names in for-profit undergrad, but it does seem that some people think that this law school was committing fraud.

chargers21 wrote:Doesn't this forgive stupid decision making in the future? Like, hey kids, if your decision to attend a school is so poorly thought out that the school closes, we'll get the bill. Never mind the bottom of the class student who made a similarly stupid, but just slightly not as bad, decision to go pay sticker at a less bad school that isn't going to close and where they still won't be able to afford the debt

Right. Because when you're evaluating law schools, your calculus includes your likelihood of getting your money refunded if the school closes.

There's no deterrent value in making the kids keep the debt. Nobody considers that when evaluating that sort of school, especially kids who choose to go there.

All it does is prevent an entity capable of paying the debt with no real adverse consequences (the federal government) and put the onus on someone whose life might be ruined by it.

FWIW, I agree that it's not fair to the kid who can't get a job out of a similarly shitty school that didn't close. But that's an argument for changing the system (i.e., getting rid of the shitty, predatory law schools), not screwing the kids over whose school did close.